MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735569788 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.001

Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two‐stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards

2017· article· en· W2735569788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David S. Knopman, Eli Alford, Kaitlin Tate, Mark D. Long, Ara S. Khachaturian

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementAlzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
KeywordsInstitutional review boardContext (archaeology)Research ethicsInformed consentClinical trialMedicinePsychologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: For nearly 50 years, institutional review boards (IRB) and independent ethics committees have featured local oversight as a core function of research ethics reviews. However growing complexity in Alzheimer's clinical research suggests current approaches to research volunteer safety is hampering development of new therapeutics. As a partial response to this challenge, the NIH has mandated that all NIH-funded multi-site studies will use a single Institutional Review Board. The perspective describes a joint program to provide a single IRB of record (sIRB) for phases of multi-site studies. METHODS: The approach follows two steps. One, an expert Scientific Review Committee (SRC) of senior researchers in the field will conduct the review principally of scientific merit, significance, feasibility, and the likelihood of meaningful results. The second step will be the IRB's regulatory and ethics review. The IRB will apply appropriate regulatory criteria for approval including minimization of risks to subjects and risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, equitable subject selection, informed consent, protections for vulnerable populations, and application of local context considerations, among others. RESULTS: There is a steady demand for scientific, ethical and regulatory review of planned Alzheimer's studies. As of January 15, 2017, there are nearly 400 open studies, Phase II and III, industry and NIH sponsored trials on disease indications affecting memory, movement and mood in the US. CONCLUSIONS: The effort will initially accept protocols for studies of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and related disorders effecting memory, movement and mood. Future aims will be to provide scientific review and, where applicable, regulatory and ethical review in an international context outside North America with sites possibly in Asia, Europe and Australia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.561
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.510
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5610.510
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.016
Scholarly communication0.0170.019
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.0180.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.048

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.652
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.110 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207